Back
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Kirti – Appellant
Versus
Anup Singh Deceased Through Lrs – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The hearing of the case is being held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.
2. The following interesting question arises for consideration:-
'whether the proforma defendant who has supported the case of the plaintiff can be granted an opportunity to lead evidence after the contesting defendant has already concluded his evidence?"
Some facts are required to be noticed.
3. Smt. Rachna daughter of Sh. Rajinder Kumar (proforma respondent no.2) filed a suit for passing a decree for separate possession by way of partition in two equal shares. The plaintiff and proforma defendants are on one side whereas the contesting defendant-Anup Singh is on the other side.
4. The petitioner herein was impleaded as proforma defendant no.2. It was claimed that Smt. Rachna, Smt. Kirti (petitioner herein) and Smt. Kailash are joint owners to the extent of half share, whereas, the remaining half share is owned by Sh. Anoop Singh. The petitioner along with Smt. Kailash filed the written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. It is evident from the written statement filed by the proforma defendant no.2 and 3 that the entire cl
Once a proforma defendant admits the case of the plaintiff and supports it, they essentially claim the same relief as the plaintiff, and should have filed an application before the contesting defenda....
The main legal point established is the court's discretion to grant a final opportunity to lead evidence in a civil suit, emphasizing the importance of conducting proceedings diligently and cooperati....
Consenting defendants must present evidence before contesting defendants to ensure procedural fairness and avoid strategic advantages.
The main legal point established is that the court has the discretion to set aside an order closing the right to lead evidence and grant further opportunity, considering the circumstances and subject....
The court upheld the principle that, ordinarily, the plaintiff must lead evidence first, barring exceptions, reaffirming the proper application of civil procedural rules regarding burden of proof.
Cross examination - it is evident that it is like an ex-parte decree and even an opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness was denied. In the above circumstances we are of the opinion that....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
